/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9996415]

ITT: most retarded theories you've heard
I'll start
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality

[Anonymous No.9996450]

It would "work" in a scenario where the box is replaced with a black hole. The subject would not die when entering the hole, but would be dispersed into the event horizon alive as pure information. To the witness, they would burn quitw fast.

[Anonymous No.9996472]

>>9996415
>ITT: most retarded theories you've heard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

[Anonymous No.9996475]

>>9996415
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Bang_Theory

[Anonymous No.9996477]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning_of_the_September_11_attacks

[Anonymous No.9996481]

>>9996415
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

[Anonymous No.9996484]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk

[Anonymous No.9996509]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/commonly_accepted_theory

[Anonymous No.9996511]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OP_is_not_a_faggot

[Anonymous No.9996512]

>>9996481
>>9996475
>>9996472
Trolls.

[Anonymous No.9996522]

>>9996512
Brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9996536]

>>9996512
It’s okay, sweetie. Try to bait people next time.

[Anonymous No.9996615]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
This is so fucking stupid

[Anonymous No.9996620]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

[Anonymous No.9996621]

>>9996615
Really? How do you resolve it then?

[Anonymous No.9996659]

>>9996621
The human is just hardware executing a program. He isn't the entity that is supposed to understand Chinese in the process just like a transistor doesn't understand matrix operations.
The software that he runs by following the program's instructions does understand chinese though, by all means.
This should be completely obvious to anyone with a literal highschool grade understanding of computer architecture, fucking philosophers...

[Anonymous No.9996665]

>>9996659
to add even just by varying your stupid thought experiment you should be able to figure out that it is nonsense.
Replace the chinese conversation program with ANY other software and go on to state that computers can't really understand integrr addition and http protocols, they just SIMULATE understanding them WOW.

[Anonymous No.9996703]

>>9996615
Indeed, it's like asking a person "do you really "understand" multiplication or you are just "simulating" it because you have memorized the multiplication tables?".

[Anonymous No.9996863]

>>9996620
How come we don't have free will then?

[Anonymous No.9996873]

atheism. kant proved we can't know god doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.9996893]

>>9996873
This one really puzzles me. It seems obvious to me that atheism is in essence as irrational as faith in a supernatural power, it simply is negative faith - certainty about something we cannot possibly know. Yet I encounter many smart people who proclaim to be atheists and apparently don't notice that they're bypassing rigorous logic in the process.

[Anonymous No.9996903]

>>9996472

[Anonymous No.9996905]

>>9996893
We generally accept it as logical to not believe in things for which there is no evidence, even if there is no dorect evidence against them.
There is no substantial evidence for the existence of god,

[Anonymous No.9996908]

>>9996893

this is why anyone who isn't agnostic-atheist is a complete retard with intellectual disability.

also burden of proof, you covert /pol/fag.

[Anonymous No.9996916]

>>9996415
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

[Anonymous No.9996917]

>>9996905
I agree, and since there is no substantial evidence either for or against the existence of god(s), agnosticism seems to be the only logical stance.
>>9996908
>also burden of proof, you covert /pol/fag.
???

[Anonymous No.9996920]

>>9996916
That's not even a theory.

[Anonymous No.9996933]

>>9996917
No, I mean that we dont believe in the exitence of things if there is no evidence for them and I think that's perfectly logical. Even of you dont have direct evidence against it. It's logical to say god doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.9996958]

>>9996933
Saying you have no reason to believe in something and affirming something doesn't exist are not equivalent statements. In this case the first is logical while the second isn't. An astronomer from the 17th century saying that there is no reason to believe in exoplanets would have been absolutely correct, but had he positively asserted that exoplanets don't exist he would have diverted from pure logic and could have been either right or wrong - and as we know today, in this case wrong.

[Anonymous No.9996998]

>>9996472

[Anonymous No.9997017]

>>9996958
But an astronomer in the 17th century absolutely had evidence for the exitence of exoplanets even though he never observed one. The example doesn't fit.
In any case if you eant there is also dorect evidence against there existence of god: it doesn't fit out understanding of physics

[Anonymous No.9997024]

>>9996472
certified braindead amurricunt

[Anonymous No.9997586]

>>9997017
Neither do UFOs, but they are well documented by official and unofficial sources. One time relativity did not fit our understanding of physics.

[Anonymous No.9998105]

>>9996917
Are you also agnostic of Zeus, Santa Clause, the flying spaghetti monster and the tea pot in space?

[Anonymous No.9998107]

troll thread

[Anonymous No.9998313]

>>9996475

[Anonymous No.9998347]

>>9996415
It's not a theory you retard, it's a thought experiment.

[Anonymous No.9998357]

>>9996472
>>9996475
>>9996620
>>9996908
bretty good bait :DDDDDD *clappu clappu* 8/8 t. csiense bolice :DDD :D

[Anonymous No.9998362]

>first time on /sci/
>first thread is a fucking trainwreck
Do I just possess bad luck?

[Anonymous No.9998376]

>>9998362
No, we get these breads every once in a while. This board, like most besides maybe /his/ or /lit/, has a severe case of "Look-at-me,-I'm-so-intelligent-because-I-mock-/pol/-which-makes-me-morally-superior-therefore-winning-a-day-more-before-I-an-hero-titis". Ignore them and they'll go.

[Anonymous No.9998382]

>>9998313
Is there a character that could even possibly EVEN TOUCH Madara Uchiha? Let alone defeat him. And I'm not talking about Edo Tensei Uchiha Madara. I'm not talking about Gedou Rinne Tensei Uchiha Madara either. Hell, I'm not even talking about Juubi Jinchuuriki Gedou Rinne Tensei Uchiha Madara with the Eternal Mangekyou Sharingan and Rinnegan doujutsus (with the rikodou abilities and being capable of both Amateratsu and Tsukuyomi genjutsu), equipped with his Gunbai, a perfect Susano'o, control of the juubi and Gedou Mazou, with Hashirama Senju's DNA implanted in him so he has mokuton kekkei genkai and can perform yin yang release ninjutsu while being an expert in kenjutsu and taijutsu. I’m also not talking about Kono Yo no Kyūseishu Futarime no Rikudō Juubi Jinchuuriki Gedou Rinne Tensei Uchiha Madara with the Eternal Mangekyou Sharingan (which is capable of Enton Amaterasu, Izanagi, Izanami and the Tsyukuyomi Genjutsu), his two original Rinnegan (which grant him Chikushōdō, Shuradō, Tendō, Ningendō, Jigokudō, Gakidō, Gedō, Banshō Ten’in, Chibaku Tensei, Shinra Tensei, Tengai Shinsei and Banbutsu Sōzō) and a third Tomoe Rinnegan on his forehead, capable of using Katon, Fūton, Raiton, Doton, Suiton, Mokuton, Ranton, Inton, Yōton and even Onmyōton Jutsu, equipped with his Gunbai(capable of using Uchihagaeshi) and a Shakujō because he is a master in kenjutsu and taijutsu, a perfect Susano’o (that can use Yasaka no Magatama ), control of both the Juubi and the Gedou Mazou, with Hashirama Senju’s DNA and face implanted on his chest, his four Rinbo Hengoku Clones guarding him and nine Gudōdama floating behind him AFTER he absorbed Senjutsu from the First Hokage, entered Rikudō Senjutsu Mode, cast Mugen Tsukuyomi on everybody and used Shin: Jukai Kōtan so he can use their Chakra while they are under Genjutsu.

[Anonymous No.9998480]

>>9998362
The OP is clearly bait, so.. not really

[Anonymous No.9998883]

>>9996472
laughing my ass off as im reading the wiki article who the hell comes up with nonsense like this

[Anonymous No.9998888]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality

[Anonymous No.9999796]

>>9996415
take your pick

[Anonymous No.10001914]

>>10000000

[Anonymous No.10001988]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

[Anonymous No.10002414]

>>9996703
that's a very valid question
you wouldn't say that a computer "understands" multiplication as repeated addition just because it can compute products
similarly for a toddler that is taught to regurgitate multiplication tables
if you're trying to say there's no difference between understanding concepts and performing tasks then you're a fucking retard

[Anonymous No.10002829]

>>9998105
This destroys the agnostic.

[Anonymous No.10003810]

>>9999796
>college is stupid
Well, depending on your planned major, personal abilities, time and internet access, it very well may be.

[Anonymous No.10003873]

>>10002414
yes there is a difference between understanding and performing tasks but to use it to judge computer vs human for example is sort of moving the goalposts.
Let's say a computer remembers all single digit multuplication results while a human can nultiply arvitrary numbers because he *understood* it. Now for single digit numbers they both have the same performance but you say the human understands more. This just means that he *could* do more than required though, multiplying bigger numbers. It wasnt the task at hand though. A compute could learn the rules behind multiplication and compute the products of arbitrary numbers too and again have the same performance as a human. Now a smart human that *understands* math would be able to find patterns and multiply numbers more efficiently, faster than the computer but again that wasnt the intended goal.
The way you use understanding is just to say that on addiional related tasks the human can perform better but that's moving the goalposts.

[Anonymous No.10004518]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube#Time_Cube_concept

[Anonymous No.10004525]

>>9996415
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

[Anonymous No.10004526]

>>9996472
This is the correct answer.

[Anonymous No.10004544]

>>9999796
This is not your safe space, libtard.

[Anonymous No.10005129]

>>10004544
Being retarded is a conservative thing then? Thank you for giving me insight into american politics

[Anonymous No.10005144]

>>10004544
Epic trolling maga XD

[Anonymous No.10006083]

>>10005144
trolling these book readin libs one post at a time

[Anonymous No.10006191]

>>9996665
The point of the Chinese room is to make you think about whether a computer could achieve sentience by processing lots of rules ABOUT it. It uses "understanding Chinese" as an analogy. You're arguing about whether it's a sensible use of language, but it's about whether the computer feels something.

[Anonymous No.10006213]

>>9996472
Climate is one of those subjects where it goes
brainlet(global warming is fake) ----> midwit (global warming is real) -------> big brain (global warming is exaggerated af) -------> enlightened (nobody actually knows what the fuck is going on)
>t. atmos PhD

[Anonymous No.10006227]

>>9999796
>knives don't cut underwater
whut

[Anonymous No.10006231]

>>10006191
It's not worth it mane. There are a good number of people, especially fellow STEMfags that aren't capable of understanding the hard problem of conciousness. I just consider them p-zombies and file them under "soulless automatons and/or asians"

[Anonymous No.10006457]

>>10006191
it's not about feelings, it's just about understanding chinese and I made two arguments:
The software that is run does clearly understand chinese
By replacing speaking chinese by other tasks it becomes apparent that the feeling that the computer doesnt really understand the task at hand is just created by how vague and subjective the task of understanding chinese is.

[Anonymous No.10006495]

>>9996621
The argument only applies to the case where the program stimulates the human mind, and has no relevance to a program that emulates it.

[Anonymous No.10006912]

>>10006457
>The software that is run does clearly understand chinese
But it doesn't "understand" Chinese It has a fixed set of responses for every input. If you input tell me a joke it would tell you the same joke until you got tired.

[Anonymous No.10006947]

>>9996477
Definitely this. What retards believe this story

[Anonymous No.10006950]

>>9996477
“It was bin laden”
*everyone knows it was the saudis*
“Nevermind it was the saudi’s!” - 10 years later

[Anonymous No.10007352]

>>10006912
no, this is not what the chinese room is about.
The complexity of the program isnt specific, the argument being made is that the human running the program doesnt understand chinese so the system is just faking understanding.
How good the program is isnt part of the argument. If the program is shitty ofc no one will understand chinese.

[Anonymous No.10007357]

>>9998105
The problem with those examples are that they have explicit features which have been defined. Thus, we can deny those things when their existence would contradict reality. But given that it "exists" in many different forms, if God exists, then it would have to be something that fits in the scheme of reality. Santa Claus, Zeus (Illiad version), and the Easter Bunny can be refuted as their existence is contradicted by what we see. It's okay to be atheist specific to a certain God with defined characteristics, but it is naive to be an atheist or a theist if the true character of God is, say, the laws of nature and mathematics, or something like that.

[Anonymous No.10007358]

>>10006912
I want to make a better argument against what you said:
Why do you claim the program would be bad? Why can't it be very smart and realistically reply to everything, easily pass a Turing test? If you explain to me now why programs cant do that; then you are making some argument but it doesnt have any thing to do with the Chinese Room.